t-76.115 project review wellit i2 iteration 7.2.2005

T-76.115 Project Review

WellITI2 Iteration

7.2.2005

2

T-76.115 Project ReviewT-76.115 Project Review

Agenda Project status (5-10 min)

achieving the goals of the iteration project metrics

Work results (20-25 min) presenting the iteration’s results demo

Used work practices (5-10 min)

3


Status of the iteration’s goals Goal 1: Requirements

Three new requirements No other changes

Goal 2: Architecture and Design Architectural design of the product is finished. Test cases for all modules defined.

Goal 3: UI studies Usability tests run

Goal 4: Implementation (implemented/total) Use cases: 13 / 15 Functional requirements: 32 / 44

Only one essential requirement not implemented No conditional or optional requirements implemented for PUD

Goal 5: User's manual Draft done No much contents yet

Goal 6: Testing Module testing done Some integration testing done (will be continued in the next iteration)

4


Status of the iteration’s deliverables Project Plan

OK Requirements document

OK Technical Specification

Outdated UI proto

OK Game design

No changes Test Cases

New test cases for MAP and SIC Test report and Test log

OK SEPA diaries

OK

5


Realization of the tasks

(Major) discrepancies No contents generated for User's

manual Only one customer meeting held Other project management: Project

manager has not reported all hours Project plan needed no (major) updates

6


Working hours by person

Total amount quite close Project management

requires a lot of work The biggest problem is the

bias of undone hours – some have to do way more than others in the last iteration

Realized hours in this iteration Plan in the beginning of the iteration

Latest plan

Person Planned Realized DiffTuomas 18 24 6Aki 45 57 12Lauri 60 60,5 0,5Heikki A 62 60,5 -1,5Heikki H 52 60 8Tommi 42 30,5 -11,5Tero 57 54 -3Total 336 346,5 10,5

Person PP I1 Total I2 FD TotalTuomas 87 68 155 18 17 190Aki 46 59 105 45 40 190Lauri 30 47 77 60 53 190Heikki A 36 37 73 62 55 190Heikki H 33 52 85 52 53 190Tommi 40 66 106 42 42 190Tero 36 41 77 57 56 190Total 308 370 678 336 316

Person PP I1 I2 Total FD TotalTuomas 87 68 24 179 17 196Aki 46 59 57 162 40 202Lauri 30 47 60,5 137,5 53 190,5Heikki A 36 37 60,5 133,5 55 188,5Heikki H 33 52 60 145 53 198Tommi 40 66 30,5 136,5 42 178,5Tero 36 41 54 131 56 187Total 308 370 346,5 1024,5 316

7


The biggest problem

Wk 2 Wk 3 Wk 4 Wk 5 Wk 60

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4Hours used per person (I2)

TuomasAkiLauriHeikki AHeikki HTommiTeroTotal

Work is done later rather than earlier

8


Quality metrics

Unit testing was reduced considerably Only two JUnit classes done

Test cases (passed/run) POT 2 / 3 (3 total) PUD 8 / 9 (12 total) MAP 4 / 5 (5 total) SIC 2 / 4 (4 total)

Severity Blocker Critical Major Normal Minor TrivialTotal reported 0 0 3 6 0 0Open 0 0 2 5 0 0

All documents reviewed

9


Quality assessment

Much more testing must be done Some problems caused by bugs in mobile devices All documents reviewed

Some documents are outdated

LegendCoverage: 0 = nothing1 = we looked at it2 = we checked all functions3 = it’s testedQuality:= quality is good= not sure= quality is bad

Deliverable Coverage Quality CommentsPOT 2 Most problems with the open source libraryPUD 3 MAP 2 SIC 2

Demo game 1

Project Plan 3 No major changes since the previous iterationRequirements Document 3 No major changes since the previous iterationTechnical Specification 3 Dramatically outdated/undoneUI Proto 3 User's Manual 2 Still in a very early phase

Minimal functionality, but working. Defectsare in the modules.

10


Software size Code line metrics are quite useless in this project because...

MupeS and MupeC are based on existing software Hard to separate code wrote by us from the original

PUD contains both Java and PHP code Metrics not accurate

...so, our contribution to the code base in bytes:Start I1 I2 FD

MupeS 0 86014 94862MupeC 0 20170 23712PUD client 0 4753 10132Total 0 110937 128706

11


Changes to the project The project manager changed Minor changes due to Process Tuning SEPA

Agendas earlier to TWiki Responsibilities dealt among group members when writing weekly reports One studies, teaches other No typos to document reviews

Changed to ad-hoc approach with Demo game No formal requirements No test cases But will follow the UI Proto very closely

12


Risks What is the current situation regarding the risks?

No materialized risks New identified and analysed risks: 1 Currently analysed risks: 28

13


Results of the iteration Technical Specification User's Manual Usability SEPA (updated) Progress Tracking SEPA (updated) Test-Driven Development SEPA (updated) Process Construction and Tuning SEPA (updated) Second increment of POT and PUD First increment of MAP and SIC Demo game No major changes

Project Plan Requirements Document (3 new requirements) Game design UI proto (results of the usability tests are put straight to the Demo game)

14


Results of the iteration: Technical Specification Technical specification document is severely outdated

A lot of documenting must be done in the next iteration Technical specification in various plain files, papers, etc. -> must be transferred to the TS

15


Results of the iteration: User's Manual Will be in HTML format Draft done Not much content

16


Results of the iteration: Usability SEPA Usability tests done Found some issues in the UI proto Affects the demo game

17


Results of the iteration: Progress Tracking SEPA The change of the project manager changed also the author of this SEPA No major changes Frequent updates to diary

18


Results of the iteration: TDD SEPA SIC done using TDD Time consuming Suitability for this project questionable

19


Results of the iteration: Process C&T SEPA A workshop held in the end of I1 iteration

Changes took place in the start of I2 iteration Process repeated again in the end of I2 iteration

20


Results of the iteration: POT and PUD PUD is usable, tested and working Not much effort put on POT in this iteration

An external library used Needed porting from J2SE to J2ME

Works nonetheless

21


Results of the iteration: MAP and SIC Both working Essential features implemented Needs testing to gain robustness

22


Results of the iteration: Demo game General concepts of the demo game are working No content yet

23


Used work practices Following work practices were used

Iteration planning Time reporting Documenting

Publishing and reviewing practices Requirements change Usability tests Version controlling Coding conventions Defect tracking Risk management Communication practices

Practices to be tried out No new practices (except those mentioned in Process C&T SEPA)

All practices are detailed in project plan and/or appropriate documents

24


Experiences from practices Iteration planning

New project manager -> no experience in planning The plan came true amazingly well

Time Reporting Works in general Occasionally people postpone the reporting

...and some hours are not reported at all

Requirements Management The defined management process seems to be too heavy weight Not much happening with the requirements

Version Controlling Works fine Some unnecessary commits to the repository, but luckily one can always go

back to a previous version

25


Experiences from practices Code Conventions

Working well Some pretty printing must be done License texts must be added to every code file

Defect Tracking Bugzilla in use

Complex system -> steep learning curve But useful

Usability tests Worked well A lot of valuable input Overkill for this project

Risk Management Working well

Communication Practices Working well

t-76.115 project review wellit i2 iteration 7.2.2005

Documents